The Times is now turning off comments on all 'gender' articles

Yes you can't say stupid either, you have to say s t u p i d and similar.

The AI moderation they use is super-annoying (not sure you are allowed to say annoying, either, although I think angry got through so probably is ok)

I've posted about their (Open Web) approach as described on their site earlier on the thread.

Yes you can't say stupid either, you have to say s t u p i d and similar.

The AI moderation they use is super-annoying (not sure you are allowed to say annoying, either, although I think angry got through so probably is ok)

I've just tried to post a comment saying someone was ridiculous. It didn't get through the filter.

Took the word out and it was accepted.

The MailOnline article reporting Miriam Cates MP p’s statement about schools transitioning children is an example of how they restrict comments.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10614899/Schools-minister-says-need-talk-world-trans-rights.html

Only two comments. One with 2,300 upvotes , the other with 3,500 downvotes.

1( prior to Feb 2022 subs can share articles, comment on sex gender articles. Readers using share tokens can read the article and read the comments
2) From beg to mid Feb 2022. All articles on sex/gender articles had comments switches off. About 40 articles yet we were that this was because 1) legal cases or 2) a sensitive issue
3) As of yesterday the Times opened Up comments on recent and slightly older gender / sex articles.

I understand that but (this was yesterday so may have been updated) it's only subscribers that can see the comments.

Isn't that fair enough? If you want all the perks, you pay for the content. Or read it at the library.

I really dont think it's fair to compare the Times to the Guardian on this issue. THe former has allowed a wide variety of articles and views to be discussed, and has in a lot of ways been a real vector for the public becoming aware of the nuances of the issue.

I also think it's significant that The Guardian has had a habit of disallowing comment on any contentious topic for years. And by that I mean any topic where the readers are likely to disagree with the editorial line, not just ones that tend to degenerate into a morass of nastiness.

But comments can be difficult for newspapers to manage at times, and I am guessing that in some ways these articles were creating work they couldn't keep up with.

One thousand eight hundred people almost without exception can tell the difference:

There is always a risk to women, of being raped or killed, by men.

There may sometimes be a risk to men, of being spoken to 'unkindly', by men.

PankhurstConnection MarlboroWoman
Since the thread was started, The Times has changed its position, and has opened comments. There are now around 1.8K comments under the JK Rowling article, the absolute stonking majority in support of her. I doubt that Janice Turner will feel the need to leave.

Switching to the Spectator or the Telegraph will involve holding my nose before taking that plunge. But if the Times no longer want to let Females have a public voice then they have become the misogynistic paper that the Guardian is. Remember last year or the year before when the Guardian had to sack 300 staff at the same time the Spectator were hiring. I don't think the Times will be heading the same way any soon but when the sex gender debate becomes more out in the open as it is rapidly then they will be remembered for censoring women's voices. I do feel incredibly sorry for Janice Turner as I think she'll be joining Suzanne Moore soon.

[quote OvaHere]Perhaps we could use this thread to signpost each day which comment section is being used that day to discuss the articles where comments aren't allowed. Ridiculous I know.

I've found some comments about the Starmer article on this piece about the cultural boycott of Russia.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-is-a-war-so-dont-dance-with-the-enemy-sjktzf9nl[/quote]
I like this idea and would be happy to join in.

If this continues I may be switching papers despite the excellent Janice Turner.

I think you will find Ides has disproportionately more sympathy for their transitioned male friend (and possibility any other male from the way their posts come across lately) than for any woman who needs space away from any male.

The monstering that these posts have taken on is remarkable .

It is Ides’ single track that is playing over and over different threads. It is not just snide and snark, this are posts showing hate for women’s needs for safety and privacy. Remarkable to see such hatred for women in plain sight.

If there were your imaginary 40 women with one naked male we would eject him. As you well know.

Most changing rooms are only a few women at a time. Mothers with their daughters in an open gym changing room are unable to eject a man. Nor would teenage girls in an open pool changing room.

It’s about girls and women being confident in going into the loos and not being confronted by a male. Because we have been brought up to avoid males, especially in vulnerable situations like changing rooms.

If you change that dynamic you put girls in danger. Most trans women, know this and have respect to not be a dick about it.

Posts making fun of rape and sexual assault of women? That's a bit grim Ides.

The accusation always seems to be that those with GC views are 'obsessed with genitals' but comments made by Ides always contain an extraordinary number of references to dick and balls.

More seriously Ides, your comments show a startling lack of empathy for those who feel threatened by the presence of 'dick and balls' because of previous trauma. It just shows yet again how gender ideology is the epitome of a luxury belief.

I think we should all have a virtual hug, and weep softly amongst ourselves at how our message that we're all so weak in the presence of penises and testicles has finally been accepted! Shall well do that on, say, this coming Friday, at 6 pm? :)

Either you genuinely can’t really understand the issue, or you’re making this caricatured nonsense up that you know perfectly well is complete shite. So come on, which one is it?

I think it's because, by now, the message has hit home and is well established: that, though there's 1 or so transwomen to every 40 natal women, the presence of that one transwoman (in a toilet, changing room or sport) is all it takes to oppress all the natal women around her. That is how powerful and mighty having a penis and testicles (or once having a penis and testicles) truly is. I think all of us here on Mumsnet have made our point: that's how delicate and fragile we are, when confronted by the mightiness of penises and testicles (or indeed penises and testicles that were once there, but have now been removed).

I think this is actually cause for celebration: We GC women have, at last, proven just how equal we are, by hammering home just how much the merest whisper maleness, or even the ghost of it, oppresses us. :) God bless J K Rowling and her superbly-applied make up and lipstick! :)